Microleakage in ceramic inlays luted with different resin cements
- PMID: 12729085
Microleakage in ceramic inlays luted with different resin cements
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the microleakage in ceramic inlays using different resin cements with margins in enamel and cementum/dentin interfaces.
Materials and methods: Standard Class II MOD inlay cavities were prepared in 32 noncarious human premolars. The cavities were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 8):
Control group: cavities were treated with Single Bond and incrementally filled with a composite resin (P60); Enforce group: feldspathic ceramic inlays were luted using Prime & Bond 2.1 and Enforce; RelyX group: inlays were cemented with Single Bond and RelyX ARC; Resin Cement group: ceramic inlays were bonded using Single Bond and Resin Cement. Ceramic inlays were previously treated with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 2 min, followed by silane application. After 7 days of storage in distilled water, teeth were submitted to thermocycling. After applying nail varnish, specimens were immersed in 2% aqueous solution of methylene blue for 8 h. After washing, teeth were cut into three sections through the restorations, and the leakage was assessed using a standardized score.
Results: Data were submitted to statistical analysis using nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis). Dye leakage at margins in enamel was statistically lower (p < 0.01) than at cementum/dentin interfaces. RelyX ARC performed better (p < 0.05) than resin cement (enamel) and composite restorations (cementum/dentin). No other statistical differences were observed.
Conclusions: Both the material and the substrate interface influenced microleakage of the ceramic inlays.
Similar articles
-
Microleakage of ceramic inlays luted with different resin cements and dentin adhesives.J Prosthet Dent. 2009 Oct;102(4):235-41. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60161-X. J Prosthet Dent. 2009. PMID: 19782826
-
Microleakage of inlay ceramic systems luted with self-adhesive resin cements.J Adhes Dent. 2014 Dec;16(6):523-9. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a32811. J Adhes Dent. 2014. PMID: 25264550
-
Tensile bond strength and flexural modulus of resin cements--influence on the fracture resistance of teeth restored with ceramic inlays.Oper Dent. 2007 Sep-Oct;32(5):488-95. doi: 10.2341/06-140. Oper Dent. 2007. PMID: 17910226 Clinical Trial.
-
Adhesive luting of indirect restorations.Am J Dent. 2000 Nov;13(Spec No):60D-76D. Am J Dent. 2000. PMID: 11763920 Review.
-
The clinical performance of ceramic inlays: a review.Aust Dent J. 1999 Sep;44(3):157-68. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1999.tb00217.x. Aust Dent J. 1999. PMID: 10592560 Review.
Cited by
-
Considerations for ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: a review.Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2013 Apr 18;5:21-32. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S42016. Print 2013. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2013. PMID: 23750101 Free PMC article.
-
Bond strength of a new universal self-adhesive resin luting cement to dentin and enamel.Clin Oral Investig. 2005 Sep;9(3):161-7. doi: 10.1007/s00784-005-0308-5. Epub 2005 Apr 27. Clin Oral Investig. 2005. PMID: 15856343
-
Influence of different cusp coverage methods for the extension of ceramic inlays on marginal integrity and enamel crack formation in vitro.Clin Oral Investig. 2009 Sep;13(3):333-41. doi: 10.1007/s00784-008-0239-z. Epub 2009 Jan 10. Clin Oral Investig. 2009. PMID: 19137332
-
Analysis of marginal adaptation and sealing to enamel and dentin of four self-adhesive resin cements.Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Feb;16(1):191-200. doi: 10.1007/s00784-010-0501-z. Epub 2011 Feb 16. Clin Oral Investig. 2012. PMID: 21327799 Clinical Trial.